Composers Forum is a daily web log that allows invited contemporary composers to share their thoughts and ideas on any topic that interests them--from the ethereal, like how new music gets created, music history, theory, performance, other composers, alive or dead, to the mundane, like getting works played and recorded and the joys of teaching. If you're a professional composer and would like to participate, send us an e-mail.

For all you postmodernes out there who think organicism in music is dead, the Bournemouth Sinfonetta Choir cares to disagree. They're lookiing for a composer to create a "work [that] will celebrate the landscape nurtured by organic farming." Click here and scroll down a bit. And thanks to Debbie in Dublin for the heads-up. (Wish I had a link for ya, Debbo.)

A comment on the cover about Bernard Rands reminded me of something he said to me a few years ago. I’m paraphrasing, but he spoke of the period of high modernism – 1950s to 1970s – as a time when many composers lost sight of the power of harmonic rhythm – the rate at which harmonies change in a piece. He felt that no matter what harmonic system was being used -- key-centered or freely chromatic, triadic or clustered – a good sense of harmonic rhythm could spell the difference between chaos and communication.

Harmonic rhythm can be steady or mercurial, can speed up or slow down in congruence or in contrast with the surface rhythm.

For much of my music, the harmonic rhythm is crucial. From time to time, I’ve even composed the harmonic rhythm of a piece before any other element.

Is this a facet of music you pay much attention to? Or do you think it’s overrated?